#im usually not interested in engaging with online arguments in general

[woolydemon]

reasons why Tumblr is better than twitter number #999978: I am not forced to see league of legends discourse on my feed just bc I like a gorgeous fanart of one of those lesbians or middle aged men yaoi

[whakatinana-workbook]

7-minute presentation:

 Within a western contemporary society we experience the world around us through virtualities. It is hard to ignore the rapid developments of the 21st century due to the introduction of information and communication technology

 We experience the world through art, Film, photography, television, we shop online now, and at the touch of a button we can communicate with friends or complete strangers through social media. Our entire identities can be diluted down to IRD and customer numbers.

 Because of the introduction of these new technologies, and the way in which we experience the world today what we consider ‘real’ and how we might experience said ‘real’ world is changing, and perhaps its changing without a lot of us even realising.

 The real is often prioritized over that of the virtual or fake. Prehaps in a true post structurlist fashion the arguments throughout my essay  will suggest that to meet the virtual face to face is an opportunity to rid of binary oppositions of what is considered ‘real’ or ‘virtual’ and to suggest they are two working together rather than simply opposing concepts. Our relationship and also fashions relationship between what is real and virtual or fake is where my project is rooted.

 Deleuze describes the relationship that the virtual and actual have to each other is a coexisting one (151). The virtual and the actual are both real, one perhaps in a less tangible way, but real nonetheless. To describe their undistinguishable coexistence yields a question of their conceptually opposing definitions and understanding. Or rather as Deleuze explains “…it is not so much that one cannot assign the terms ‘actual’ and ‘virtual’ to distinct objects, but rather that the two are “indistinguishable”(151).

 Jean Baudrillard analysis includes the production of image and appearance through media, as well as the formulations of ideas of simulation within a modern technological context and ‘hyper reality’. Throughout his writings he explains that it is harder to distinguish between the real and its copy or representations he quotes..

 “the world does not exist as objective truth, but as image and likeness” (Ng, 173).

 The blending of what can be considered real or virtual is considered the condition of hyperreality. Some individuals might be drawn to aspects of the virtual world over the physicality of the real one.  Negative connotations are usually attracted to these individuals. As if their involvement with the virtual and their way of experiencing the world is unauthentic one. But as Deleuze explains the actual and virtual co exist, and are intertwined with each other, something can not be virtual without the element of the real, or the real without a cloud of virtual images.  

 The ‘real’ as opposed to ‘fake’ is also linked to the idea of authenticity. Within practices of art and design the ideas of authenticity or originality are often held with high regard, fashion design is no different in this respect. The Instagram account Diet Prada is known for their unfiltered critique of industry professionals that seem to be overtly “knocking each other off.” Using equal parts demeaning and entertaining banter, Diet Prada never hold back on criticism regardless of the subjects industry stature.

 Vetements F/W 2018 show Elephant in the Room, was met with much controversy. Diet Prada explained on an Instagram post that Vetements use of Masion Martin Margelias, ‘Tabi boot’ was not just a homage to the Demna’s love for margelia, a brand that he has worked with in the past, but a direct copy that lacks integrity.

 Demna, the creative director for the brand Vetements responded to the controversy stating that “Everything is appropriation. We live in a world that is full of references, and references exsit to feed us in order to create something new from them” (Lanigan).

 Vetements refinement of popular culture, and turning it into humours and high end garments is what the brand is known for. But once a piece of fashion history is referenced, Vetements is meet with a backlash from industry critics. Perhaps the irony of this debate is the fact that the tabi toe boot was already a reference of a traditional sock dating back to the 15th century, originating in Japan (Manning). Which begs the question when do references simply begin and end?

Generally the way I design, is that I let the theory or topic I’m interested in influence the aesthetics and silhouettes of the garments. The idea is that ill use digital prints and 2d-3d processes to emulate these ideas. Im going to create a 4 look, high end, conceptual fashion collection. Because its rooted in a concept doesn’t mean its not commercial or sellable. There’s something quite important I think about making clothing that’s wearable. The garments relationship to the body is always integral to me.  

 With these types of processes in mind I produced a number of fabrication samples.

 With the help of an artist collaborator we came together to create these design samples. So the idea here is to take the virtual image of a piece of clothing to then create more clothing out of this image.

 Which questions the idea of the original designer, and also the collaboration between myself and the artist I’m working with  begs the same question.

Collaboration being another aspect of my process throughout this project and I’m looking for more people to collaborate with shoes, bags, jewellery. Mostly accessories.

 James bridle is a guy that coined the term “New Aesthetic”, which is kind of an investigation of the blurring of the digital or technology with our lives. So you can probably see why his work is relevant to this project. Instead of going into all of the reasons why I think this project is important and why we should be investigating what it means to live in hyper reality, Bridel says it even better, so I’m just going to share a few words from him..

 Bridle is concerned with the lack of commentary on technological analysis within the arts, or otherwise weak commentary on the new aesthetic (25). Which is ultimately a representation of the wider communities failure to fully engage with technology and understanding its affect. The lack of wanting to understand technology and the way it operates can bring implications to its users.

 Bridle claims,

 “Technology is political. Everything is political. If you cannot perceive the politics, the politics will be done to you” 26

 “If we don’t move the debate to a deeper level, none of this will change. There is a justified and rising opposition to drone warfare, computational surveillance and intelligence gathering, which may or may not produce lasting political change…Those that cannot understand technology are doomed to be consumed by it.” 26 Thanks

[kellykperez]

Should Google be more transparent with its updates?

It might seem hard to recall now, but there was a time when Google would regularly announce updates to its ranking algorithms, confirming what they were and how they would affect websites.

During these halcyon days, information about Google ranking updates was generally delivered via Google engineer and head of Google’s Webspam Team Matt Cutts, who was to many marketers the public face of Google.

As someone who was involved in helping to write the search algorithms himself, Matt Cutts was an authoritative voice about Google updates, and could be depended on to provide announcements about major algorithm changes.

Since Cutts’ departure from Google, however, things have become a lot more murky. Other Google spokespeople such as Gary Illyes and John Mueller have been less forthcoming in confirming the details of algorithm updates, and the way that Google makes updates has become less clearly defined, with regular tweaks being made to the core algorithm instead of being deployed as one big update.

Occasionally Google will go on record about an upcoming major change like penalties for intrusive interstitials or a mobile-first search index, but this has become the exception rather than the rule. A glance down Moz’s Google Algorithm Change History shows this trend in action, with most recent updates referred to as “Unnamed major update” or “Unconfirmed”.

The world of SEO has adapted to the new status quo, with industry blogs fervently hunting for scraps of information divulged at conferences or on social media, and speculating what they might mean for webmasters and marketers.

But does it have to be this way? Should we be taking Google’s obscurity surrounding its updates for granted – or, given the massive influence that Google holds over so many businesses and websites, are we owed a better level of transparency from Google?

A “post-update” world

At last month’s SMX West search marketing conference, the topic of ‘Solving SEO Issues in Google’s Post-Update World’ was a key focus.

But even before SMX West took place, the issue of Google’s lack of transparency around updates had been brought front and centre with Fred, an unnamed and all but unconfirmed ranking update from Google which shook the SEO world in early March.

Fred had an impact on hundreds of websites which saw a sudden, massive drop in their organic search rankings, leaving website owners and SEOs scrambling to identify the cause of the change.

But Google consistently refused to go on record about the algorithm update and what was causing it. It only gained the name ‘Fred’ thanks to a flippant comment made by Google’s Gary Illyes that “From now on every update, unless otherwise stated, shall be called Fred”.

@rustybrick @i_praveensharma @JohnMu sure! From now on every update, unless otherwise stated, shall be called Fred

— Gary Illyes ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ (@methode) March 9, 2017

When pressed about Fred during a Google AMA session at SMX West, Illyes replied that the details about what Fred targeted could be found “in the webmaster guidelines”, but declined to give more specifics.

After the Fred update hit, reports surfaced that the algorithm change seemed to be targeting websites with poor link profiles, or those that were ad-heavy with low-value content.

Evidently, the websites affected were engaging in poor SEO practices, and it can be argued that sites who do this shouldn’t be surprised when they are hit with a ranking penalty by Google.

However, if Google wants to clean up the web by rewarding good practices and punishing bad ones – as its actions would suggest – then wouldn’t it be more beneficial to confirm why websites are being penalised, so that their owners can take steps to improve? After all, what’s the point of a punishment if you don’t know what you’re being punished for?

On the other hand, you could argue that if Google specified which practices webmasters were being punished for, this would only help bad actors to avoid getting caught, not provide an incentive to improve.

The pros and cons of Google transparency

In the wake of Google Fred, I asked the Search Engine Watch audience on Twitter whether they thought that Google owed it to its users to be more transparent.

Several people weighed in with strong arguments on both sides. Those who agreed that Google should be more transparent thought that Google owed it to SEOs to let them know how to improve websites.

@rainbowbex Google should be more transparent. If 1 in 100 websites gets hit with penalties, I'd like to know whats different bout that 1.

— Dani (@emo_tigger_xo) March 17, 2017

@rainbowbex Yes it should be, especially when most legitimate SEO'ers / Agencies want to keep client sites up to speed with requirements.

— Assertive-Media (@AssertiveMedia) March 17, 2017

Additionally, if Google expects website owners to make their sites more user-friendly, then maybe Google should be informing them what it thinks the user wants.

We’ve already seen how this can work in practice, with Google’s mobile-friendly ranking signal giving webmasters an incentive to improve their mobile experience for users.

@rainbowbex @sewatch Y-if G wants us to optimise the web for the user, we need to know what the user wants/what Google thinks the user wants

— Dan Tabaran (@dtabaran) March 17, 2017

Others argued that with so many bad actors and black hat SEOs already trying to abuse the system, complete Google transparency would lead to chaos, with people gaming the system left, right and center.

I can appreciate the stance. Countless people game the system already. If Google were more transparent, it could make for complete chaos. https://t.co/eGdj2GcwDL

— Brandon Wilson (@digital_visions) March 17, 2017

One Twitter user made an interesting point that Google might not necessarily want to help SEOs. At the end of the day, all SEOs are trying to game the system to some extent. Search engine optimization is a game of finding the right combination of factors that will allow a website to rank highly.

Some play by the rules and others cheat, but at the end of the day, there is an element of manipulation to it.

@rainbowbex @sewatch Google is not a fan of optimization companies. They think of it as "cheating" to get ranked higher.

— Taylor Wienke (@TaylorWienke) March 17, 2017

We have a tendency to assume that Google and SEOs – at least of the white hat variety – are on the same side, working to achieve the same goal of surfacing the most relevant, high quality content for users. By that logic, Google should help good SEOs to do their job well by disclosing details of algorithm updates.

But if Google and search specialists aren’t really on the same side, then what obligation does Google have to them?

Is obsessing about updates missing the point?

Maybe all of this debate about algorithm transparency is missing the point. If we agree that website owners should be giving users the best experience possible, then perhaps they should be concentrating on that rather than on the “game” of trying to rank highly in Google.

Michael Bertini, Online Marketing Consultant and Search Strategist at iQuanti and a long-time consultant on all things search, believes that website owners should do exactly that.

“In all my years doing this with both black hat and white hat methods, the best thing anyone could ever do is to do things for the end-user, and not for Google.

“Have you ever Google searched something in the morning and then by noon, it’s dropped a position?  This happens all the time. Granted it mostly happens on page three and above, but every once in a while we do see it on page one.

“What I tell my team and clients is this: if Google makes a change in the algorithm or you notice a drop in your rankings or even in increase in your rankings – don’t take this as permanent.”

Bertini also believes that anyone who is not actively engaging in bad SEO practices should have nothing to fear from a Google algorithm update.

“So long as you’re not keyword stuffing, buying links, building links from private networks,  purchasing social followers or shares, running traffic bots, or any other tactics that could come off as trying to trick Google… you should be fine.

“Those who have to worry about algorithmic updates are usually those who are always looking for a way to manipulate Google and the rankings.”

from IM Tips And Tricks https://searchenginewatch.com/2017/05/02/should-google-be-more-transparent-with-its-updates/